Justin Mason wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
Was that it? was it transient (which happens if there's too little CPU
for too many logs), or are there still issues?
I guess it was transient. I would have thought that 7+ hours after all
the logs were in I wouldn't have seen this though.
I think it was badly backlogged.
Perhaps if load is
this bad on the box we should consider reducing the mc-* preflight
mass-checks to 1 or 2 instead of 4. Is anyone paying attention to the
data from the mc-fast or mc-med? I found them to be to small to be useful.
Yes, that may be a good idea. I'm going to have a pretty busy week this
week with $dayjob, and will be away on holidays for 2 weeks after that ;),
but it's certainly something we need to look into.
I'm also still a little curious as to whether it was expected for
Sunday's active.list to drop a metric tonne of rules, and if not what
caused it to do so.
Maybe we should simply not publish a new active.list or rule updates after
a weekly -net mass-check -- it always seems to have significantly
different freqs, probably due to smaller amounts of mail being checked.
Hmm... that might be it. This one just caught my eye as it happened to
remove all of the new rules and a lot more other rules than normal for a
-net mass-check. I just find it odd that *all* of the new rules were
removed this time using the same submitters as the previous week.
In any case, yeah, we need to introduce some dampening in the rule
promotion/demotion to prevent rule bounce. I've got a few loose ideas
on how to do it, not sure when I'll have time to look into it though.
Daryl
